Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: We investigate how preparations for an explanation-oriented discussion with less knowledgeable others impacts reasoning about politically contentious issues. Results from two experiments (N=1,474), conducted at the peak of the 2012 and 2016 U.S. presidential elections, show that instructions to discuss contentious political issues with less knowledgeable persons (adolescents/persons new to the country) results in more impartial reasoning compared to self-reflections/discussions with a peer, mediated through greater focus on explaining the issue. These effects occurred independent of the magnitude of psychological self-distance, self-investment, or perceived knowledgeability between conditions. A pre-registered experiment 3 (N=410) manipulated explanations directly, demonstrating that explaining the issue of Brexit to a peer (vs. talking) fosters open-minded cognition among UK citizens who voted in favor of Brexit. We discuss implications for fostering open-minded reasoning about contentious issues and its relationship to psychological distance, intellectual humility, and generative motives.